Watson v. NY Doe 1

Background

The parties submitted a proposed stipulated protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to govern confidential information exchanged during discovery. They had substantially agreed on many terms but disagreed about using confidential materials in related proceedings and about the categories of information eligible for heightened protection. After a court conference, the parties submitted competing proposals.

The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored protective order. It stated that Watson’s proposal was closer to model protective orders the court had used as reference points, but it also found that the proposal did not adequately address certain issues raised by the defendants and required additional changes for clarity.

Protective-order terms

The order prohibits persons subject to it from disclosing discovery material designated confidential except as the order permits. A producing party may designate only material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes categories such as personal or intimate information; information about sexual-harassment or sexual-violence reports and investigations; counseling, mental-health, or medical treatment information; personnel files; statements by alleged victims of sexual misconduct, harassment, or assault; health and medical records; psychological or psychiatric records; previously undisclosed personal financial information; or another category later given confidential status by the court.

The order sets procedures for marking confidential material and for designating deposition testimony and exhibits. It permits disclosure to specified people, including the parties, insurers, counsel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators who sign a nondisclosure agreement, potential witnesses who sign that agreement, experts and specialized advisers who sign it, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Counsel must retain signed nondisclosure agreements and produce them at the specified times.

The order does not decide whether discovery requests are proper, waive any privilege or protection, or determine whether evidence will be admissible at trial. It requires particularized support for filings under seal and states that the court retains discretion over confidential treatment of materials submitted in connection with motions or other proceedings. It also warns that materials introduced at trial are unlikely to remain sealed unless the trial judge grants an advance application.

Use in related proceedings and enforcement

The order allows discovery material to be used only for prosecuting, defending, or settling claims in this action, the Los Angeles action identified in the order, and the New York arbitration identified in the order. A party seeking to use the material in a related proceeding must give 30 days’ written notice. An objection must be made within seven days, followed by a good-faith meeting between the parties and, if necessary, a joint request for a court conference. The material cannot be used in the related proceeding while a timely objection is pending.

The order also addresses subpoenas and other compulsory process, requires reasonable precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and requires recipients generally to return or destroy confidential material within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals. Counsel retained in the action may keep certain archival materials, which remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Debra Freeman granted in part and denied in part Watson’s motion for a protective order. The order governs the pretrial phase of the action, and the Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 120. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or the admissibility of any particular evidence.